Just received this from SCI:

On August 16, 2007, President George W. Bush signed an important Executive Order promoting the importance of hunting and wildlife conservation and requiring Federal agencies to expand and enhance "hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat." The E.O. directs Federal agencies to consider the impact of Federal activities on hunting and to work with State and Tribal governments, and non-governmental organizations, to advance hunting opportunities and game animal conservation. The E.O. also requires the Federal agencies to "respect private property rights and State management authority over wildlife resources." The E.O. is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070817.html .

If this in fact pans out, this could be great news for hunters!
Let's see what comes of it!

Excellent! Two things immediately come to mind. The part which states "The E.O. directs Federal agencies to consider the impact of Federal activities on hunting...." could apply to impacts of wolf predation on elk in certain areas.

And I read this part..."Executive Order promoting the importance of hunting and wildlife conservation and requiring Federal agencies to expand and enhance "hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat."....as a potential push to allowing hunting in some national parks to control game animals.

Maybe I'm being naively optimistic....

that's just it....I hope it does not just become another "rhetoric" bill, that "says" great things, but offers nothing.

Controlled hunting in the National parks would be a good thing, however the criteria for the hunt is established.
as far as the wolves go, well, y'all have your hands full with them. Seems to this Easterner at least, that there was the great push to preserve the wolf, to re-introduce it to it's natural habitat, and now that it is back, doing what wolves do, the very same peolple that wanted the re-introduction do not want to hear the farmer's concerns over livestock and such.

There was such a push in NJ to establish Coytote back to the state. The farmers and others fought this, and for the most part coyote are NOT an issue in NJ: Mostly due to the overcrowded human population.

But back on topic, we as hunters can only hope it sways in our favor!:rolleyes:

Yes,I saw the report on television,this morning.
It has to be a positive thing,even if some of the individual park overseerers,drag their feet.
Frank

It's not a bill. It's an Executive Order, and if you follow the link and look at the last section, you will see it specifically spells out that it is not a law and has no judicial teeth. It is just a sense of direction the country should go in, but it has no specific regulatory effect. Any conflict with other regulations would only be handled internally by the executive branch, and cannot be used by any citizen as a basis for action against any regulatory agency or law. It is about on par with declaring today to be national cotton candy appreciation day. A little more important, because a regulatory agency might choose to consider the sense, but isn't required to. My attorney friend (source of most of this interpretation) says that considering that it may largely be pandering would not be out of place.

This will make an impact because this is the President laying out guidelines for federal agencies. It does not have the effect of law but it does have an effect on the cabinet level positions and leadership positions throughout the agency. As long as a law does not preclude them from doing it, and very few exist, they are directed by the President to allow it to the extent possible. The President is at the top of the chain of command and trust me when I say people get relieved for not following EOs. I think they are trying to provide some direction to program officials and if it is not followed they will relieve them of their resposibilities. This EO lays the foundation. I have been in the federal government for four administrations and my opinion is this will have some positive effect. When EOs are ignored, offices are usually packed.

Might agree more if it weren't a lame duck president in his last 16 months in office. If the next president doesn't agree, it can all become moot pretty fast. 16 months isn't a lot of time to make serious progress expanding hunting resources.

I see what you are saying but 16 months is actually plenty of time to see who is going to be a team player and replace them with more reasonable people. I think that may be what this is about, I am hoping at least.

EO's really don't mean much. Sadly this would have been better if it had been done 4 years ago by mr. bush.

Nick, I think you got it right when you called it "pandering".

he may be a lame duck president .. but it seems to me that a lot of republicans are giving up way too soon..
mabe we deserve about 8 yrs of liberal agendas having their way,,.. if we dont have any more fight in us,, than
what im seeing..jmo
lets see wheres the best place to bury my guns and ammunition..some may see this as an over dramatization of the situation .. we ll see..

Clinton did the same thing with fishing... Some thing that said more water would be cleaned up to sustain a fishery or something. Same thing as this....meaningless.

Jim

You can't equate promotion of hunting with protecting our right to bear arms. Too many believe they mean the same thing. Some gun owners have nothing to do with hunting (a personal choice of there's) while some hunters have nothing to do with some types of firearms. How many recent articles by so-called hunting experts have you seen lately putting down "black guns" etc. Who's that guy who wrote that nonsense a few months ago, Zumbo?